Eerste sensuur van 'n Amerikaanse senator

Eerste sensuur van 'n Amerikaanse senator



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Senator Timothy Pickering, 'n federalis van Massachusetts, word die eerste senator wat 'n sensuur kry toe die senaat 'n mosie teen hom goedkeur met 'n stem van 20 tot sewe. Pickering word daarvan beskuldig dat hy die wet op die kongres oortree het deur geheime dokumente wat die president aan die senaat meegedeel het, openbaar te maak.

Tydens die Revolusionêre Oorlog was Pickering die adjudant -generaal van generaal George Washington en in 1791 deur president Washington as posmeester -generaal aangestel. In 1795 dien hy kortliks as oorlogsekretaris van Washington voordat hy in 1795 as minister van buitelandse sake aangestel word. met Alexander Hamilton om die Verenigde State in oorlog te bring met die revolusionêre Frankryk. Nadat hy teruggekeer het na Massachusetts, is hy verkies tot 'n Amerikaanse senator, maar bedank nadat hy afgesit is omdat hy die buitelandse beleidsdokumente wat die president aan die kongres gestuur het, aan die publiek geheim onthul het. Pickering, 'n uitgesproke teenstander van die oorlog van 1812, is in 1813 as 'n verteenwoordiger van Massachusetts verkies en het twee termyne gedien voordat hy uit die politiek tree.


Direkte verkiesing van senatore

Kiesers het sedert 1913 hul senatore in die privaatheid van die stembus verkies. Die opstellers van die Grondwet was egter nie van plan om senatore op hierdie wyse verkies te word nie en is opgeneem in artikel I, afdeling 3, "Die Senaat van die Verenigde State moet bestaan ​​uit twee senatore uit elke staat, gekies deur die wetgewer daarvan vir ses jaar en elke senator het een stem. " Die verkiesing van afgevaardigdes tot die Konstitusionele Konvensie het die presedent vir staatskeuse geskep. Die opstellers het geglo dat staatswetgewers by die verkiesing van senatore hul band met die nasionale regering sou versterk, wat die kans op bekragtiging van die Grondwet sou vergroot. Hulle het ook verwag dat senatore wat deur staatswetgewers verkies is, sou kon konsentreer op die onderneming sonder druk van die bevolking.

Dit lyk asof hierdie proses tot middel 1850's goed werk. Op daardie tydstip het toenemende vyandelikhede in verskillende state vakante senaatsitplekke tot gevolg gehad. In Indiana, byvoorbeeld, het die konflik tussen Demokrate in die suidelike helfte van die staat en die opkomende Republikeinse Party in die noordelike helfte die verkiesing van enige kandidaat verhinder en sodoende die setel van die Senaat vir twee jaar vakant gelaat. Dit was die begin van baie omstrede gevegte in staatswetgewers, aangesien die stryd om senatore te kies die toenemende spanning oor slawerny en die regte van die state wat tot die burgeroorlog gelei het, weerspieël.

Na die Burgeroorlog het die probleme in die senatoriale verkiesing deur die staatswetgewers vermeerder. In een geval aan die einde van die 1860's is die verkiesing van senator John Stockton van New Jersey betwis op grond van die feit dat hy verkies is deur 'n veelheid eerder as 'n meerderheid in die staatswetgewer. Stockton het sy verweer gegrond op die opmerking dat nie alle state hul senatore op dieselfde manier gekies het nie en 'n verslag voorgelê wat die teenstrydigheid in staatsverkiesings van senatore illustreer. In reaksie daarop het die Kongres in 1866 'n wet aanvaar wat bepaal hoe en wanneer senatore in elke staat verkies word. Dit was die eerste verandering in die proses van senatoriese verkiesings wat deur die stigters geskep is. Die wet het gehelp, maar dit het die probleem nie heeltemal opgelos nie, en in sommige wetgewers het daar in sommige senatore steeds lang vakatures ontstaan.

Intimidasie en omkopery was 'n paar van die state se keuse van senatore. Nege omkopery is tussen 1866 en 1906 voor die senaat gebring. Boonop het 45 189 grense in 189 state tussen 1891 en 1905 in 20 state plaasgevind, wat gelei het tot talle vertragings in senatore. In 1899 was probleme met die verkiesing van 'n senator in Delaware so skerp dat die staatswetgewer 'n senator vir vier jaar nie na Washington gestuur het nie.

Die stukrag vir hervorming het reeds in 1826 begin, toe die eerste verkiesing van senatore eers voorgestel is. In die 1870's het kiesers 'n petisie aan die Huis van Verteenwoordigers gestuur vir 'n gewilde verkiesing. Van 1893 tot 1902 het die momentum aansienlik toegeneem. Elke jaar gedurende die tydperk is 'n grondwetlike wysiging om senatore met algemene stemme te kies, in die kongres voorgestel, maar die senaat het verandering sterk weerstaan, ondanks die gereelde vakatures en die betwiste verkiesingsuitslae. In die middel van die 1890's het die Populistiese Party die direkte verkiesing van senatore in sy partyplatform opgeneem, hoewel nie die Demokrate of die Republikeine destyds veel kennis gegee het nie. In die vroeë 1900's het een staat op sigself veranderinge begin. Oregon was 'n pionier in die direkte verkiesing en het oor 'n paar jaar met verskillende maatreëls geëksperimenteer totdat dit in 1907 geslaag het. Kort daarna het Nebraska sy voorbeeld gevolg en die grondslag gelê vir ander state om maatreëls te tref wat die wil van die volk weerspieël. Senatore wat hervorming teëgestaan ​​het, het gesukkel om die groeiende steun vir direkte verkiesing van senatore te ignoreer.

Na die eeuwisseling het momentum vir hervorming vinnig gegroei. William Randolph Hearst het sy uitgewersryk uitgebrei met Kosmopolities en het die oorsaak van direkte verkiesing bepleit met snaakse artikels en sterk voorspraak vir hervorming. Hearst het 'n veteraanverslaggewer, David Graham Phillips, aangestel, wat skerp stukke oor senatore geskryf het en dit as pionne van nyweraars en finansiers uitgebeeld het. Die stukke het 'n reeks geword met die titel "Die verraad van die senaat", wat in 1906 in die maandelikse uitgawes van die tydskrif verskyn het.

Senatore word toenemend verkies op grond van staats referenda, soortgelyk aan die middele wat deur Oregon ontwikkel is. Teen 1912 het tot 29 state senatore gekies, hetsy as genomineerdes van hul party se primêre of in 'n algemene verkiesing. As verteenwoordigers van 'n regstreekse verkiesingsproses ondersteun die nuwe senatore maatreëls wat vir federale wetgewing pleit, maar om hervorming te bewerkstellig, was 'n grondwetlike wysiging nodig. In 1911 het senator Joseph Bristow van Kansas 'n resolusie aangebied waarin 'n grondwetlike wysiging voorgestel word. Die idee geniet ook sterk steun van senator William Borah van Idaho, self 'n produk van direkte verkiesing. Agt suidelike senatore en alle Republikeinse senatore uit New England, New York en Pennsylvania het die resolusie van senator Bristow gekant. Die senaat het die resolusie goedgekeur, hoofsaaklik vanweë die senatore wat deur staatshervormings verkies is, waarvan baie hul eerste termyn dien en daarom meer bereid was om direkte verkiesing te ondersteun. Nadat die senaat die wysiging aanvaar het, wat die hoogtepunt van dekades se debat oor die kwessie verteenwoordig het, het die maatreël na die Huis van Verteenwoordigers oorgegaan.

Die Huis het aanvanklik nie beter gevaar as die Senaat in sy vroeë besprekings oor die voorgestelde wysiging nie. Baie gestoei het die debatte gekenmerk, maar in die somer van 1912 het die Huis uiteindelik die wysiging aanvaar en dit vir bekragtiging aan die state gestuur. Die veldtog vir openbare steun is bygestaan ​​deur senatore soos Borah en die politieke wetenskaplike George H. Haynes, wie se wetenskaplike werk oor die Senaat baie bygedra het tot die aanvaarding van die wysiging.

Connecticut se goedkeuring op 8 April 1913 het die sewentiende wysiging die vereiste driekwart meerderheid gegee wat nodig was vir die inwerkingtreding. Die daaropvolgende jaar was die eerste keer dat alle senatoriese verkiesings met algemene stemme gehou is.

Die sewentiende wysiging herhaal die eerste paragraaf van artikel I, afdeling 3 van die Grondwet, en maak voorsiening vir die verkiesing van senatore deur die frase "gekies deur die wetgewer daarvan" te vervang deur "gekies deur die mense daarvan". Boonop laat dit die goewerneur of uitvoerende gesag van elke staat toe, indien dit deur die wetgewer van die staat gemagtig is, in die geval van 'n vakature 'n senator aanstel totdat 'n algemene verkiesing plaasvind.

Die sewentiende wysiging van die Amerikaanse grondwet:

Die senaat van die Verenigde State bestaan ​​uit twee senatore uit elke staat, gekies deur die mense daarvan, vir ses jaar en elke senator het een stem. Die kiesers in elke staat beskik oor die vereiste kwalifikasies vir die kiesers van die talrykste tak van die staatswetgewers.

As daar vakatures in die verteenwoordiging van 'n staat in die senaat is, moet die uitvoerende gesag van die staat 'n verkiesingsbrief uitreik om sodanige vakatures te vul: Met dien verstande dat die wetgewer van enige staat die uitvoerende gesag daarvan mag bemagtig om tydelike aanstellings te maak totdat die mense vul die vakatures deur die verkiesing soos deur die wetgewer bepaal.

Hierdie wysiging word nie so uitgelê dat dit die verkiesing of termyn van 'n senator wat gekies word, beïnvloed nie, voordat dit as deel van die Grondwet geldig word.


Henry Clay ’s Resolusie Censuring Andrew Jackson (1834)

Op 28 Maart 1834 het die senaat wat deur Whig beheer word, 26-20 stemme gegee om president Andrew Jackson te laat afkeur. Hierdie daad was heeltemal sonder presedent in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis. Die uiteindelike resolusiebesluit, die laaste in 'n reeks konsepbeskuldigings wat senator Henry Clay neergelê het, lui soos volg: Besluit dat die president in die laat uitvoerende verrigtinge met betrekking tot die openbare inkomste op homself gesag en mag oorgeneem het en nie #8217d deur die Grondwet en wette, maar in afwyking van beide ”:

Volgens Jackson se vriende was dit die resolusie van die wantroue wat die Grondwet afwyk. As die optrede van Jackson so erg was, sou die senatore wat hulle afkeur, sekerlik 'n poging tot beskuldiging ondersteun? Tog het al 26 van hulle die skuld van Jackson beoordeel in die geval van 'n verhoor. Hulle het hulself as beskuldigdes, regter en jurie aangestel. Soos almal egter weet, was dit juis omdat die beskuldiging nie 'n politieke moontlikheid was nie, maar dat die senaat besluit het om Jackson te veroordeel. Demokrate het die Huis beheer en het meer as 'n derde van die Senaat uitgemaak, so beskuldiging was nie 'n voorgereg nie. Dit was nie 'n baie beginselvaste antwoord op die aanklag van vooroordeel nie, maar dit het die werklikheid voldoende verklaar.

Jacksonians het ook daarop gewys dat afkeuring nêrens in die Grondwet genoem word nie. Whigs het toegegee dat die kongres slegs die bevoegdhede wat daaraan gedelegeer is, kon uitoefen, maar hulle het die saak anders gestel. Klei se afkeuringsbesluit was nie wetgewing nie, en die Senaat het bloot sy institusionele mening uitgespreek oor 'n kwessie van hoë politieke en grondwetlike invoer. Waar is dit presies verbied om dit te doen?

Wat het Jackson in die laat uitvoerende verrigtinge gedoen met betrekking tot die openbare inkomste ” om so 'n donderende vergetelheid te verdien? Die onmiddellike rede was die weiering van Jackson om voldoende dokumentasie te verskaf wat verband hou met sy voortydige versmoring van die Tweede Bank van die Verenigde State. Maar die werklike probleem was natuurlik die verwurging self, en Jackson het sy sekretaris van die tesourie beveel om in 1833 openbare deposito's van die bank te verwyder, wat die wettige inlywing effektief herroep (die handves van die bank sou in 1836 verstryk). Clay en die maatskappy was ook ontsteld dat Jackson die bedanking van twee tesourie -sekretarisse geëis het om geen ander rede as dat hulle geweier het om 'n beleid uit te voer wat Whigs as 'n afwyking van 'n daad van die kongres beskou nie.

Die verskillende besluite wat Clay bied om die regte taal te vind, word op 'n groter vel papier aangebring om 'n soort senatoriese veroordelingscollage te skep. Die prototipe was minder skuins in sy afkeer as die finale produk. Hier is die oorspronklike tweedelige censure-resolusie van Clay:

𔄙ste. Het dit opgelos deur die ontslape sekretaris van die tesourie te ontslaan, omdat hy, in stryd met sy gevoel van sy eie plig, nie die geld van die Amerikaanse state sou onttrek in verband met die Bank van die Verenigde State en sy takke in in ooreenstemming met die mening van die president en deur sy opvolger aan te stel om sodanige verwydering te bewerkstellig, het die president die uitoefening van 'n bevoegdheid oor die tesourie van die Verenigde State aanvaar wat hom nie deur die grondwet en wette verleen is nie, en gevaarlik vir die vryhede van die mense.

2d. Besluit dat die redes wat die sekretaris van die tesourie [Roger Taney] aangevoer het vir die verwydering van die geld van die Verenigde State, gedeponeer in die Bank van die Verenigde State en sy takke, op die derde dag van Desember 1833, is onbevredigend en onvoldoende. ”

Hier is die gewysigde weergawe (jammer vir die swak kwaliteit):

Hy het opgelos dat die president van die VSA die uitoefening van 'n mag oor die tesourie van die Verenigde State aanvaar het, terwyl hy die verantwoordelikheid aanvaar het om die deposito's van die openbare geld uit die Bank van die Verenigde State te verwyder. vir hom deur die Grondwet en wette, en gevaarlik vir die vryhede van die mense. ”

Daar was geen regverdiging vir die siening dat Jackson mag uitgeoefen het wat hom nie deur die Grondwet en wette verleen is nie, en die bewering dat sy optrede gevaarlik is vir die mense se vryhede. ” -weergawe was die bewering wat Jackson gehad het geskend die Grondwet en wette van die Verenigde State, benewens die uitoefening van mag wat hulle nie verleen nie.

So lyk die agterkant:

President Jackson reageer ewe ongekend: hy formeel protesteer teen die resolusie van die Senaat. In nog 'n historiese eerste het die Senaat eenvoudig geweier om die boodskap van die president te ontvang en dit in sy Journal te druk.

Thomas Hart Benton, wat eens Jackson in Nashville tweegeveg het, was aan die spits van 'n beweging in die senaat om die resolusie van die sensuur uit die Senaat Journal te laat skrap. (U het seker geraai dat niks soos hierdie ook al gebeur het nie.) Demokrate het spoedig genoeg stemme gehad om te skrap, en die akte is op 16 Januarie 1837 gedoen. Artikel I, afdeling 5, “ [e] ach House sal 'n joernaal hou van sy verrigtinge en dit van tyd tot tyd dieselfde publiseer. . . en die ja en nee van die lede van enige huis oor enige vraag. . . Ek word in die joernaal ingeskryf. ” Ek veronderstel dat Jacksoniërs tevrede was om hul vyande op te vaar en veronderstelde ongeregtighede te beëindig toe dit die kwaad sou vernietig.


Afkeuring

Terwyl sensuur ook uit dieselfde grondwetlike klousule kom, is dit nie 'n term wat die Framers uitdruklik genoem het nie. 3

Censure verwyder nie 'n lid uit sy amp nie. Sodra die Huis die sanksie met meerderheidstem goedgekeur het, moet die lid wat gesensureer is, in die put van die Huis staan ​​(“die balie van die Huis” was die termyn van die negentiende eeu) terwyl die Speaker of voorsittende die resolusiebesluit en die aanhef daarvan hardop voorlees. as 'n vorm van openbare teregwysing.

Dekades voordat die Huis die lede eers verdryf het, het hy 'n afkeuring oorweeg om sy diepe afkeuring van die gedrag van 'n lid te registreer. Vroeg in sy bestaan ​​het die Huis (maar het uiteindelik nie) afkeuring oorweeg om Matthew Lyon van Vermont en Roger Griswold van Connecticut te straf vir goed-gepubliseerde oortredings van decorum vroeg in 1798. Lyon het op Griswold gespoeg tydens 'n hewige argument en, toe die Huis wou later nie die Vermonter uitdryf of sensureer nie, maar Griswold wou sy eer verdedig deur hom by sy lessenaar te sit. Die Huis het hierdie 'affray' gebruik en 'n komitee oor voorregte gestig om die voorval te ondersoek, hoewel dit uiteindelik geweier het om 'n straf aan te beveel nadat beide mans belowe het "om die vrede te behou."

Veral gedurende die negentiende eeu, toe politici tweestryde gevoer het oor beledigings om hul eer en reputasie, het sensuur na vore gekom as 'n manier om die integriteit van 'n lid effektief uit te daag. Vanaf die vroeë 1830's tot die laat 1860's het die Huis individue gesensureer vir onaanvaarbare optrede wat grootliks tydens vloerdebat plaasgevind het. Die eerste keer dat die huis een van sy eie verwerp het, het in 1832 plaasgevind toe William Stanbery van Ohio die speaker Andrew Stevenson van Virginia beledig het. Maar aangesien hierdie oortredings nie tot die uitsettingsvlak gestyg het nie, het die huispraktyk 'n eenvoudige meerderheidstem vereis oor 'n besluit van die teenwoordige lede en stemme.


Wat beteken dit om 'n politikus af te dank?

Namate die ondersoek na die beskuldiging van president Donald Trump 'n nuwe ronde verhore betree, is een idee bespreek as 'n manier om teen die president uit te kom, sonder om 'n beskuldiging te kry.

Verwerping is 'n formele afkeuring wat deur een of albei kamers van die kongres aanvaar kan word. Anders as beskuldiging, is afkeuring nie 'n bevoegdheid wat die Grondwet bied nie, het Gregory Magarian, professor in die regte aan die Washington Universiteit in St. Die Huis en die Senaat het interne reëls aanvaar wat hulle toelaat om 'n resolusiebesluit op te stel en goed te keur, wat 'n openbare verslag bevat wat die optrede van 'n amptenaar afkeur. So 'n besluit is 'n teregwysing, maar dra geen wesenlike straf soos ontslag uit die amp nie.

Waarom praat ons eerder van afkeuring as van beskuldiging?

Beskuldiging en daaropvolgende ontheffing is die uiteindelike straf wat wetgewers op 'n president kan plaas. Die Huis wat deur die Demokraat gelei is, sal Trump moontlik strafregtelik vervolg, maar dit is onwaarskynlik dat die Senaat onder leiding van die Republikein hom uit sy amp sal verwyder. Te midde van die ondersoek na Trump se handelinge met die Oekraïne, is afkeuring onder regskenners en wetgewers bespreek as 'n alternatief vir beskuldiging. Demokrate kan rekord hou teen die optrede van die president sonder om tydens 'n senaatverhoor te verloor.

"Die ondersoek, gevolg deur 'n resolusie oor sensuur op grond van die ondersoek, sou die Demokrate in 'n sterker posisie laat as wat hulle sou wees as hulle dit na die senaat stuur en deur 'n deurmekaar proses van vier tot ses weke gaan," het William Galston, senior genoot in bestuurstudies aan die Brookings Institution, aan PBS NewsHour gesê.

'N Moontlike verhoor in die Senaat, het Galston aangevoer, kan die aandag van die Demokratiese voorverkiesing aflei en Trump toelaat om beskuldiging te gebruik om 'n simpatieke vertelling aan die publiek voor te lê voor sy herverkiesingsbod.

Sensuur vereis 'n laer belegging as beskuldiging, het Jessica Levinson, 'n regsprofessor aan die Loyola Marymount -universiteit, gesê. Dit vereis nie dat die kongres verhore hou of hul saak aan die publiek bewys nie. Maar wetgewers kan rekord hou van hul afkeuring.

Is 'n president ooit deur die kongres gesensureer?

'N Resolusie van die senaat teen Andrew Jackson in 1834 bied die' duidelikste voorbeeld van 'n suksesvolle presidensiële sensuur ', volgens die Congressional Research Service. Wetgewers het Jackson verwerp vir die terughouding van dokumente wat deur wetgewers aangevra is met betrekking tot sy besluit om die Tweede Bank van die Verenigde State te vergoed. Meer algemeen word afkeuringsbesluite deur die kongres of staatswetgewers aangeneem om ander wetgewers te straf.

Wat presidente betref, beslaan sensuur 'n troebel gebied, het Magarian aan PBS NewsHour gesê. 'My instink is dat sensuur terselfdertyd te sterk en te magteloos is,' het hy gesê. 'Aan die een kant, as 'n kwessie van institusionele norme, is dit die grootste negatiewe verklaring wat 'n kongreshuis teen die president of iemand anders kan maak. ... Aan die ander kant is dit vermoedelik 'n groot stryd om 'n afkeuring te kry, en aan die einde van die dag kan dit niks verander nie.

Tog, het hy gesê, sou 'n afkeuring 'n minder moeisame proses wees as 'n senaatverhoor.

Kan daar nog 'n afkeuring teen Trump plaasvind?

Kenners is gemeng oor die vraag of 'n afkeuring vir die demokrate in hierdie stadium in die ondersoek na beskuldiging nuttig sou wees.

Galston voer aan dat die voordeligste keuse vir die Demokrate sou gewees het om van die begin af met sensuur oor beskuldiging vorentoe te gaan.

Levinson het gesê dat afkeuring meer sin maak as 'n voorloper van beskuldiging. 'Ons is reeds by die volgende stap,' het Levinson gesê. Nadat wetgewers gestem het oor artikels oor beskuldiging, 'is dit die veel meer drakoniese reaksie', het sy bygevoeg.

Wetgewers kan steeds besluit om Trump as 'n simboliese veroordeling af te dank as die senaat hom vryspreek.

Hoe sou 'n sensuur Trump beïnvloed?

Verwerping lei nie tot ontslag uit die amp nie, of verlies aan presidensiële magte. Maar soos beskuldiging, kan sensuur Trump se herverkiesingskans in 2020 benadeel, asook sy reputasie en nalatenskap aantas.

Trump het die moontlikheid van wantroue afgeskiet terwyl hy met verslaggewers in Londen gepraat het. 'Die Demokrate is mal, hulle is mal. En dit is baie sleg vir ons land, ”het Trump gesê.

Links: LêERFOTO: Amerikaanse president Donald Trump praat met die media op die South Lawn van die Withuis in Washington, VS, voor sy vertrek na New York, 2 November 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo - RC181F48F0F0


Die eerste swart Amerikaanse senator het 'n buitengewone lewe gelei

Hiram Revels het slawestate ondermyn en soldate gewerf in die burgeroorlog. In die 150 jaar sedert hy sy amp aangeneem het, bly hy een van slegs 11 swart senatore wat ooit verkies of aangestel is.

Toe Hiram Rhodes Revels in 1870 na Washington reis, het hy 'n historiese stuk papier saamgebring: 'n handgeskrewe dokument wat sy reg om in die Amerikaanse senaat te dien bevestig. Revels was gereed om die eerste swart persoon te word wat in die kongres gedien het.

Maar ondanks sy verkiesing tot die pos, is die toekomstige senator nie by die wetgewer verwelkom nie. In plaas daarvan het die in Amerika gebore politikus te kampe met strawwe debat van toekomstige kollegas oor die vraag of hy 'n burger is.

Revels is gebore in Noord -Carolina in 1827. Die seun van vrye swart ouers, hy is opgelei as kapper, maar volg later 'n opleiding en loopbaan as prediker. Gestig in die African Methodist Episcopal Church, reis hy wyd en syd deur die Midde -Weste en Suid.

Revels het die sosiale orde uitgedaag in state soos Missouri, wat vrye swart mense verbied het om na die staat te immigreer en om prediking aan en onderrig van swart mense verbied. Hoewel Revels probeer het om die wet te ontwyk deur preke te vermy wat opstand kan veroorsaak - die veronderstelde rede agter die verbod op vrye swart mense om na Missouri te verhuis - is hy in 1854 in die gevangenis gesit omdat hy gepreek het en het Missouri kort daarna verlaat.

Tydens die Burgeroorlog het Revels swart soldate vir die Unie -leër gewerf en as kapelaan gedien. Daarna het hy skole gestig en selfs teen segregasie geprotesteer toe sy gesin sit in die rookmotor van 'n trein, ondanks die betaling van 'n eersteklas sitplek. (Nadat hy betoog het, het hulle hul plek in die eersteklas motor ingeneem.)

In 1866 verhuis Revels na Natchez, Mississippi, waar hy 'n reputasie opbou as 'n gerespekteerde gemeenskapsleier. Sy invloed, opvoeding en begrip van die wêreld van wit Amerikaners het van hom 'n "baie waardevolle bron" gemaak, skryf historikus Julius E. Thompson.

Dit het hom ook onder die aandag gebring van die heropbou -republikeine, wat hom aangemoedig het om te kies vir politieke setels wat uiteindelik oop was vir swart politici. In 1868 word hy verkies tot wethouder van Natchez. 'N Jaar later het hy vir die Senaat van Mississippi gehardloop. En in 1870, onder die ou stelsel waarin staatswetgewers nasionale senatore gekies het, aanvaar hy 'n aanstelling in die Amerikaanse senaat.

Toe Revels egter in Februarie 1870 na Washington gaan, het hy 'n hindernis ondervind: Demokratiese senatore was vasbeslote om hom van nasionale diens te blokkeer. Hulle het aangevoer dat hy slegs 'n Amerikaanse burger was sedert 1866, toe die Hooggeregshof sy saak omvergewerp het Dred Scott besluit, wat beweer het dat Afro -Amerikaners nie Amerikaanse burgers was nie.

Revels is eers toegelaat in die senaat na 'n lang en passievolle debat. "Mnr. Revels het geen verleentheid getoon nie, ”berig die New York Times, "En sy houding was so waardig as wat onder die omstandighede verwag kon word."

Terwyl hy in die senaat was, het Revels geveg om swart wetgewers wat in Georgië uit die amp gestoot is, te herstel en teen gesegregeerde skole in die distrik Columbia te herstel. Maar ondanks sy historiese rol, word Revels gekritiseer omdat hy te min gedoen het om swart Amerikaners te help en om amnestie vir voormalige Konfederale slawehouers tydens sy senaatdiens te ondersteun. Toe sy kort termyn in die Senaat verstryk, keer hy in Maart 1871 terug na Mississippi. Soos historikus Eric Foner aan die Washington PostSteve Hendrix, "Dit was 'n belangrike oomblik in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis, alhoewel dit kortliks omvergewerp is."

Daar was nog 'n swart senator uit die heropbou-era uit Mississippi, Blanche Bruce. Nadat hy die senaat in 1881 verlaat het, het Mississippi wette aangeneem - 'n deel van 'n golf nuwe Jim Crow -wette - wat swart mense van politieke deelname blokkeer.


Besluit van sensuur teen senator Mitt Romney

Terwyl, tydens die eerste beskuldigingverhoor, op 5 Februarie 2020, sonder bewyse van 'n federale misdaad of wangedrag en die ongrondwetlike beskuldiging van die huis geïgnoreer het, was Utah se junior die enigste Republikeinse stemming met die Demokrate in die Senaat om pres. Trump, wat die eerste senator geword het in 231 jaar van die Amerikaanse presidensiële geskiedenis wat teen 'n president van sy eie party gestem het tydens 'n vervolging en

Terwyl, op 13 Januarie 2021 het die Amerikaanse Huis van Verteenwoordigers 'n artikel van beskuldiging aangeneem waarin beweer word dat president Trump 'n opstand teen die Amerikaanse regering aanhits het, sonder enige bewyse dat hy geweld aanhits, aangesien president Trump op 6 Januarie sy ondersteuners om 'vreedsaam en patrioties u stem te laat hoor' en dat die FBI tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat die besetting van die Capitol-gebou deur die oproeriges vooraf beplan was voor die toespraak van die president en

Terwyl, op 26 Januarie 2021, nadat president Trump sy ampstermyn beëindig het en sy amp verlaat het, het senator Romney saam met al die demokrate in die senaat gestem om voort te gaan met 'n ongrondwetlike verhoor van die senaat (waarop die hoofregter van die Hooggeregshof geweier het om voorsitter te wees) oor die huisartikel van beskuldiging en

Terwyl, op 13 Februarie 2021 het senator Romney saam met al die Demokrate in die Senaat gestem om Donald Trump skuldig te bevind op die aanklag van beskuldiging en

Terwyl, Republikeine in die ander ses state waaruit Republikeinse senatore gestem het om president Trump skuldig te bevind, het hul senatore aanspreeklik gehou vir hul onregmatige stemme en

Terwyl, die Utah Republican Party Platform vereis dat ons verkose leiers aanspreeklik hou vir etiese standaarde, en om te stem om 'n voormalige president skuldig te bevind sonder genoegsame bewyse om te bewys dat enige van die elemente van die aanklag van aanhitsing tot opstand beide onregverdig en oneties is

Besluit daarom dat: Ons, die raad van direkteure van die Platform Republican PAC, verklaar hiermee ons verenigde wantroue van.

Layne Beck, Cache County
Matt Bell, County Utah
Aaron Bullen, Utah County
Mary Burkett, Washington County
Dalane Engeland, Davis County
Brad Green, Iron County
Teena Horlacher, Davis County
Bob McEntee, Weber County
Larry Meyers, Washington County
Lowell Nelson, Utah County
David Pyne, Salt Lake County
Helen Redd, Salt Lake County
Lisa Shepherd, Utah County
Ed Wallace, Washington County


Eerste sensuur van 'n Amerikaanse senator - GESKIEDENIS

Onlangs was daar 'n paar afgryslike gevalle wat onderstreep hoe ver die Amerikaanse kongres hom van enige tasbare nasionale belang geskei het.

Mark Twain het eenkeer geskryf dat "Dit kan waarskynlik deur feite en syfers aangetoon word dat daar nie 'n duidelike inheemse Amerikaanse misdaadklas is nie, behalwe die kongres." Sommige verwikkelinge die afgelope paar weke sal die oordeel beslis ondersteun as 'n mens die wetgewende liggaam van 'n land beskou as 'n meganisme wat ten doel het om die publiek te bevoordeel wat hy verkies. Die skynheiligheid van Amerika se twee groot partye is iets om te aanskou, met korrupsie op 'n vlak wat selde in die meeste derde wêreldlande bereik word.

Onlangs was daar 'n paar afgryslike gevalle wat onderstreep hoe ver die Amerikaanse kongres hom van enige tasbare nasionale belang geskei het as 'n mens nie ryk word en herverkies word nie, in watter volgorde ook al. Een van die beste om ryk te word en herverkies te word, ondanks die feit dat hulle nie twee breinselle het om saam te vryf nie, is die gewaardeerde Maxine Waters van Kalifornië, wat gespeel het in haar onlangse poging om 'n woedende skare te inspireer om meer 'konfronterend' te word as die moordverhoor van die polisieman van Minneapolis, Derek Chauvin, sou die verkeerde kant toe gaan as hy nie skuldig bevind is nie.

Hou nou in gedagte dat ons Amerikaners in 'n skuldlose, nie-aanspreeklike samelewing leef, waar niemand aan enigiets skuldig is nie, tensy hy of sy op heterdaad betrap word en geen beskermers het om te ontken dat daar enigiets gebeur het nie. Aangesien Maxine baie verdedigers het omdat sy swart is, 'n vrou en veral 'n demokraat, moes daar verwag gewees het dat 'n oproep tot oproer deur 'n kongreslid in haar geval as 'n nie-gebeurtenis beskou sou word. bewys toe die GOP 'n swak poging aangewend het om haar te straf vir haar gedrag.

Aangesien Maxine 'n deel van Kalifornië verteenwoordig, was haar voorkoms in Minnesota weinig meer as 'n wedloop met 'n dreigement van geweld. Pogings om dit as vrye spraak van haar kant af te beskryf, ignoreer die feit dat sy 'n regeringsamptenaar is, wat gul betaal word deur die belastingbetaler en 'n oproep tot geweld deur een deel van die burger wat teen die regstelsel en 'n ander kiesafdeling gerig is, kan nie as aanvaarbaar beskou word nie. Dit is inderdaad onberispelik.

'N Mens moet wonder wie vir Waters se reis in Minnesota betaal het, en hom verbaas oor haar vermetelheid toe sy 'n gewapende polisiebegeleiding vir haar eie veiligheid gevra en ontvang het terwyl sy van en na die lughawe reis. Miskien is haar oproepe om die polisie te befonds, uitgestel totdat sy haar reis voltooi het. Dit is ook belangrik om te besef dat sy, ten spyte van haar gebrek aan enigiets wat beskryf kan word as patriotisme van selfs integriteit, deel uitmaak van die Huis Demokratiese leierskap, vanweë die senioriteit wat sy in haar 29 jaar in die amp verleen het. Sy is die hoofmeisie -sweep, was die voorsitter van die House Black Caucus en is die ranglid van die House Financial Services Committee. Nog nooit het iemand soveel bereik wat so min te bied het nie.

Maar die verhaal eindig nie daar nie, en dit is waar die ware betowering van die Amerikaanse kongres na vore kom. Toe die Republikeine tereg probeer om Waters te kritiseer, was dit onvermydelik dat die onlangse beskuldiging van president Donald Trump vir die gebruik van brandende taal by die toespraak van 'n skare in die Capitol op 6 Januarie sou kom, maar die leierskap van die Demokratiese Party het niks daarvan gehad nie . Die koppie berig dat Steny Hoyer, leier van die meerderheid van die huis, kort voor die stemming van die Waters -stem, eerder as om te aanvaar dat die twee oortredings 'n bedreiging was, en die Republikeinse leierskap gewaarsku het dat 'n oproep tot die aflegging van Waters dit moeiliker sou maak om dit te regverdig neem nie soortgelyke stappe teen Republikeinse kongreslede nie. 'Dit maak dit egter moeiliker om nie aan talle [soortgelyke] resolusies aan my kant van die gang te gaan nie,' het hy gesê.

Die spel is dus onder nuwe reëls. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest.

Mark Twain once wrote that “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Some developments over the past several weeks would certainly support that judgement if one regards a country’s legislative body as a mechanism intended to benefit the public that it is elected to serve. The hypocrisy of America’s two major parties is something to behold, with corruption at a level that is rarely attained in most third world countries.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest if one excludes getting rich and reelected, in whichever order one seeks to go about that. One of the best at getting rich and reelected in spite of not having two brain cells to rub together is the esteemed Maxine Waters of California, who has starred in her recent attempt to inspire an angry mob to get more “confrontational” if the murder trial of Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin were to go the wrong way through a failure to convict.

Now bear in mind that we Americans live in a no-fault no-accountability society, where no one is guilty of anything unless he or she is caught red handed and has no protectors in place to deny that anything at all happened. As Maxine has plenty of defenders because she is black, a woman and, most of all, a Democrat, it should have been expected that in her case a call to riot by a congressman would be treated as a non-event, and so it proved when the GOP made a feeble attempt to censure her for her behavior.

As Maxine represents part of California, her appearance in Minnesota was little more than race baiting with a threat of violence thrown in. Attempts to characterize it as free speech on her part ignore the fact that she is a government official, paid for generously by the taxpayer, and a call to violence by one part of the citizenry directed against both the legal system and another constituency cannot be considered acceptable. It is indeed impeachable.

One has to wonder who paid for Waters’ Minnesota trip and marvel at her audacity when she asked for and received an armed police escort for her own safety as she traveled to and from the airport. Perhaps her calls to de-fund the police were on hold until after she completed her travels. It is also important to realize that due to the seniority afforded by her 29 years in office she is, in spite of her lack of anything describable as patriotism of even integrity, part of the House Democratic leadership. She’s Chief Majority Whip, has been the chairperson of the House Black Caucus, and is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. Never before has anyone attained so much having so little to offer.

But the story does not end there, which is where the true mendacity of the U.S. Congress comes to the surface. When the Republicans rightly attempted to censure Waters it was inevitable that the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump for the use of incendiary language when addressing a crowd at the Capitol on January 6 th would come up, but the Democratic Party leadership was having none of that. The Hill reports that shortly before the Waters censure vote, rather than accepting that the two offenses were of a kind, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer instead delivered a threat, warning the Republican leadership that forcing a roll call on censuring Waters would make it more difficult to justify not taking similar action targeting Republican members of Congress. “This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous [similar] resolutions on my side of the aisle” he said.

So the game is on under new rules. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest.

Mark Twain once wrote that “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Some developments over the past several weeks would certainly support that judgement if one regards a country’s legislative body as a mechanism intended to benefit the public that it is elected to serve. The hypocrisy of America’s two major parties is something to behold, with corruption at a level that is rarely attained in most third world countries.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest if one excludes getting rich and reelected, in whichever order one seeks to go about that. One of the best at getting rich and reelected in spite of not having two brain cells to rub together is the esteemed Maxine Waters of California, who has starred in her recent attempt to inspire an angry mob to get more “confrontational” if the murder trial of Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin were to go the wrong way through a failure to convict.

Now bear in mind that we Americans live in a no-fault no-accountability society, where no one is guilty of anything unless he or she is caught red handed and has no protectors in place to deny that anything at all happened. As Maxine has plenty of defenders because she is black, a woman and, most of all, a Democrat, it should have been expected that in her case a call to riot by a congressman would be treated as a non-event, and so it proved when the GOP made a feeble attempt to censure her for her behavior.

As Maxine represents part of California, her appearance in Minnesota was little more than race baiting with a threat of violence thrown in. Attempts to characterize it as free speech on her part ignore the fact that she is a government official, paid for generously by the taxpayer, and a call to violence by one part of the citizenry directed against both the legal system and another constituency cannot be considered acceptable. It is indeed impeachable.

One has to wonder who paid for Waters’ Minnesota trip and marvel at her audacity when she asked for and received an armed police escort for her own safety as she traveled to and from the airport. Perhaps her calls to de-fund the police were on hold until after she completed her travels. It is also important to realize that due to the seniority afforded by her 29 years in office she is, in spite of her lack of anything describable as patriotism of even integrity, part of the House Democratic leadership. She’s Chief Majority Whip, has been the chairperson of the House Black Caucus, and is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. Never before has anyone attained so much having so little to offer.

But the story does not end there, which is where the true mendacity of the U.S. Congress comes to the surface. When the Republicans rightly attempted to censure Waters it was inevitable that the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump for the use of incendiary language when addressing a crowd at the Capitol on January 6 th would come up, but the Democratic Party leadership was having none of that. The Hill reports that shortly before the Waters censure vote, rather than accepting that the two offenses were of a kind, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer instead delivered a threat, warning the Republican leadership that forcing a roll call on censuring Waters would make it more difficult to justify not taking similar action targeting Republican members of Congress. “This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous [similar] resolutions on my side of the aisle” he said.

So the game is on under new rules. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.


Kamala Harris

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Kamala Harris, in full Kamala Devi Harris, (born October 20, 1964, Oakland, California, U.S.), 49th vice president of the United States (2021– ) in the Democratic administration of Pres. Joe Biden. She was the first woman and the first African American to hold the post. She had previously served in the U.S. Senate (2017–21) and as attorney general of California (2011–17).

Who is Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris, 49th vice president of the United States, is the first Black woman to have been elected vice president. She represented California in the U.S. Senate from 2017 to 2021 and served as the state’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017.

What political party is Kamala Harris a member of?

Kamala Harris is a member of the Democratic Party.

Did Kamala Harris run for president?

Kamala Harris sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. The nomination was secured by Joe Biden, who chose Harris as his running mate.

Where was Kamala Harris born?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964.

Where did Kamala Harris go to college?

Kamala Harris earned a B.A. in political science and economics from Howard University in 1986 and a law degree from Hastings College in 1989.

Her father, who was Jamaican, taught at Stanford University, and her mother, the daughter of an Indian diplomat, was a cancer researcher. Her younger sister, Maya, later became a public policy advocate. After studying political science and economics (B.A., 1986) at Howard University, Kamala earned a law degree (1989) from Hastings College.

She subsequently worked as a deputy district attorney (1990–98) in Oakland, earning a reputation for toughness as she prosecuted cases of gang violence, drug trafficking, and sexual abuse. Harris rose through the ranks, becoming district attorney in 2004. In 2010 she was narrowly elected attorney general of California—winning by a margin of less than 1 percent—thus becoming the first female and the first African American to hold the post. After taking office the following year, she demonstrated political independence, rejecting, for example, pressure from the administration of Pres. Barack Obama for her to settle a nationwide lawsuit against mortgage lenders for unfair practices. Instead, she pressed California’s case and in 2012 won a judgment five times higher than that originally offered. Her refusal to defend Proposition 8 (2008), which banned same-sex marriage in the state, helped lead to it being overturned in 2013. Harris’s book, Smart on Crime (2009 cowritten with Joan O’C. Hamilton), was considered a model for dealing with the problem of criminal recidivism.

In 2012 Harris delivered a memorable address at the Democratic National Convention, raising her national profile. Two years later she married attorney Douglas Emhoff. Widely considered a rising star within the party, she was recruited to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Barbara Boxer, who was retiring. In early 2015 Harris declared her candidacy, and on the campaign trail she called for immigration and criminal-justice reforms, increases to the minimum wage, and protection of women’s reproductive rights. She easily won the 2016 election.

When she took office in January 2017, Harris became the first Indian American in the Senate and just the second Black woman. She began serving on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee, among other assignments. She became known for her prosecutorial style of questioning witnesses during hearings, which drew criticism—and occasional interruptions—from Republican senators. In June she drew particular attention for her questions to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was testifying before the intelligence committee on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election she had earlier called on him to resign. Harris’s memoir, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, was published in January 2019.

Shortly thereafter Harris announced that she was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. From the outset she was seen as one of the leading contenders, and she drew particular attention when, during a primary debate, she had a contentious exchange with fellow candidate Joe Biden over his opposition to school busing in the 1970s and ’80s, among other race-related topics. Although Harris’s support initially increased, by September 2019 her campaign was in serious trouble, and in December she dropped out of the race. She continued to maintain a high profile, notably becoming a leading advocate for social-justice reform following the May 2020 death of George Floyd, an African American who had been in police custody. Her efforts silenced some who had criticized her tenure as attorney general, alleging that she had failed to investigate charges of police misconduct, including questionable shootings. Others, however, felt that her embrace of reform was a political maneuver to capitalize on the increasing public popularity of social change. As racial injustice became a major issue in the United States, many Democrats called on Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, to select an African American woman—a demographic that was seen as pivotal to his election chances—as his vice presidential running mate. In August Biden chose Harris, and she thus was the first Black woman to appear on a major party’s national ticket. In November she became the first Black woman to be elected vice president of the United States.

In the ensuing weeks Trump and various other Republicans challenged the election results, claiming voter fraud. Although a number of lawsuits were filed, no evidence was provided to support the allegations, and the vast majority of the cases were dismissed. During this time Harris and Biden began the transition to a new administration, announcing an agenda and selecting staff. By early December all states had certified the election results, and the process then moved to Congress for final certification. Amid Trump’s repeated calls for Republicans to overturn the election, a group of congressional members, which notably included Senators Josh Hawley (Missouri) and Ted Cruz (Texas), announced that they would challenge the electors of various states. Shortly after the proceedings began on January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. It took several hours to secure the building, but Biden and Harris were eventually certified as the winners. She later denounced the siege—which many believed was incited by Trump—as “an assault on America’s democracy.” On January 18 she officially resigned from the Senate. Two days later, amid an incredible security presence, Harris was sworn in as vice president.


Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot

We have been discussing the effort in Congress to punish dissenting viewpoints among members on issues ranging from the Jan. 6th riot to the pandemic to racism. This has included sweeping calls for members to be disbarred or expelled for their criticism of the 2020 election or continued questioning of election irregularities. Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) has been one of those calling for punishment of members who have the temerity to disagree with his view of the election or the riot. Now, Cicilline is asking Democratic colleagues to sign on to a resolution to censure three House Republicans who are accused mischaracterizing the Jan. 6 riot, including refusing to call it an “insurrection.” It is the latest attempt to regulate how members and others discuss issues, dictating viewpoints by controlling speech used to express views.

Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week. This included the failure to use the seemingly mandatory reference to the riot as an “insurrection”:

“The members who testified that January 6th was ‘not an insurrection’ and undermined the damage that was done put their own political agendas above their country. In doing so, they recklessly disregarded the future harm they could cause by legitimizing a violent attack on our democratic institutions – a conscious and harmful decision calling into question their dedication to their role as Representatives'”

The obvious problem is that rejecting the term “insurrection” is not “legitimizing a violent attack.” Many of us refer to the violence as a “riot” because it makes fewer assumptions as to the motivations of all of those present. It is not to downplay the violence or its implications for our country. I condemned Donald Trump’s speech while he was still giving it and condemned the violence as it was unfolding. However, there were thousands of people at the protest and most were not violent and did not enter the Capitol. Those who did enter the Capitol revealed a mix of motives and actions as reflected in the charges brought by the Justice Department. Some meandered around the Capitol while others engaged in violent and destructive acts. There was clearly a core of determined and violent individuals who engaged in a premeditated efforts to stop the certification of the votes from the election. Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack. As I have previously written, even if this was not technically an insurrection, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.

The most important point is that people of good faith can differ on how to characterize or understand what occurred on January 6th while still condemning the violence. The comments of Clyde received the most attention in the press. Here is what he said in pertinent part:

CLYDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is called the Capitol Insurrection let ‘s be honest with the American people . It was not an insurrection , and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote, “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” and then from the Century Dictionary, “the act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state.”

As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 PM that day from the mob who tried to enter I can tell you the House floor was never breached, and it was not an insurrection . This is the truth.

There was an undisciplined mob there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism but let me clear , there was no insurrection , and to call it an insurrection , in my opinion , is a bold -faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures . You know , if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol . Also, the only shot fired on January 6th was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably be eventually be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Notably, Clyde then undermined his distinction between a riot and an insurrection by stating that the real insurrection was the Russian collusion scandal:

I agree with that 100 percent, you know , but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner Russia, Russia, Russia. High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate.

Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow our duly elected President Donald J Trump.

The statement taken as a whole is self-contradictory and ultimately incoherent. However, Clyde was not defending the rioters but objecting to the characterization of their criminal conduct as an insurrection. Members like all citizens are allowed to draw such a distinction. I disagreed with the challenge on the floor and the claims over the authority of Vice President Pence to “send back” the votes. However, members reflects different constituencies and viewpoints. They have a right to voice those views. Indeed, members are protected in doing such by not just the First Amendment but the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Congress has the right to censure any member. Under Article I, Section 5 “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” However, to do so over such a question is an abusive of the legislative process.

Rep. Hice focused on defending former President Donald Trump from allegations that he incited an insurrection, the basis for his second impeachment. That is an issue that still divides this country with good arguments on both sides.

As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members. However, the attempt to censure colleagues for holding such opposing views is a disgraceful use of legislative authority. Cicilline wrote:

“These three members dangerously mischaracterized what happened that day and showed more sympathy for the domestic terrorists than the Capitol police officers who died during the attack…These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline added. ‘The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today.’”

Read that over a few times. Cicilline wants to censure colleagues for “dangerous mischaracterizations [of] what happened that day.” Putting aside the irony given challenges to Cicilline’s own often over-hearted rhetoric (including as a House impeachment manager), he is seeking to punish colleagues for holding an opposing view of what occurred on that day.

As support for this abusive measure, Cicilline cited the expulsion of 17 members of Congress during the Civil War for “disloyalty to the United States.” Cicilline is historically correct about the expulsions but absurdly off-base in his analogy to the current controversy.

The move to expel these members occurred on March 1861. That was a month after the start of the war with the firing on Fort Sumpter. On April 15, President Lincoln declared an insurrection. By that time, most Southern members rushed back to support the Confederacy, leaving vacancies in Congress. Maine Sen. William Pitt Fessenden thought it was insane to hold the seats for members who left the Senate to join a rebellion. The Senate agreed and struck the names of the senators. In July 1861, The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged “in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government” for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate. Keep in mind that the first Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861.

One senator was expelled on Dec. 4, 1861 because John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had waited to see if Civil War could be avoided but then “joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn the support.” What is interesting is that, in October 1861, Breckinridge sent a formal letter of resignation to the Senate but months later Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler still moved to expel him. Ultimately, 14 senators were expelled.

Those were members who supported a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including some like Breckinridge who took up arms in the Confederate forces. Cicilline sees no distinction with colleagues who condemned the violence but characterized it as a riot rather than an insurrection. Again, Cicilline insisted “We cannot allow this abhorrent mischaracterization to go unchecked.”

Just as our Constitution protects against the tyranny of the few, it also protects against the tyranny of the majority. As Madison said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

While a censure is unlikely to prompt judicial review (which is why it likely appears to Cicilline), it is still an offense to our constitutional values. The Cicilline resolution should be condemned by members of both parties as an abuse of legislative authority and inimical to the legislative process. He would open a Pandora’s Box of politically retaliatory measures that would see no end in our age of rage. There remain members on both sides who continue to fuel our divisions and capitalize on our tragedies for political purposes. No party owns the rights to Jan. 6th or the national pain caused by the attack. It remains an open wound for our nation as a whole. We will continue to debate the causes and the characterization of that attack on Congress. However, members cannot dictate how others reference or interpret these events.